US Elections 2016

[Elerond]

Donald Trump demands Apple boycott to force it to unlock phone

 

"US presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a boycott of Apple until the tech giant helps unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino killers.

Apple has clashed with the Justice Department (DoJ) over a court order forcing the company to help break the encryption on one of its phones.

On Friday the DoJ called Apple's refusal a "marketing strategy".

Apple said it will not help break into the the phone, citing wider privacy concerns for its users.

The phone belonged to one of the two people who opened fire at an office event in San Bernardino, California, last December, killing 14

Speaking at a campaign rally, Mr Trump said: "Boycott Apple until such time as they give that information."

On Thursday, a court ordered the tech giant to help break the encryption.

The government has called the request narrow and argued it is only focused on this particular iPhone.

The DoJ filed another motion in court on Friday after Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, said Apple would continue to refuse the order.

A California court has set 22 March for the hearing."

Edited February 20, 2016 by Elerond

[Bartimaeus]

But that's one of the few places where I've actually supported Apple...

[Hurlshort]

This picture has been making the rounds:

 

 

 

I had one conservative family member share it with the title: 

Underneath Bernie’s “Democratic Socialism” Hides A Dangerous Communist Revolutionary

 

And then another liberal friend share it with:

 

Further proof that Bernie has been a warrior fighting for civil rights and racial equality his entire life.

 

Good times on facebook.  

 

Also what the heck is James Woods doing in that shot?

Edited February 20, 2016 by Hurlshot

[Gromnir]

This picture has been making the rounds:

 

 

Also what the heck is James Woods doing in that shot?

it appears that he is smoking a cigarette.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

This picture has been making the rounds:

 

 

Also what the heck is James Woods doing in that shot?

it appears that he is smoking a cigarette.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Gromnir I haven't noticed your views on who you currently leaning towards in the various presidential debates ?

 

I'm sure you alluded to voting for Republicans normally but with the current ideological stances of the leading 3 Republicans I don't you align with any of them ...would you vote for the Democratics?

 

Please share as much information as possible as I'm very interested in your opinion due to your life experience and current job

[BruceVC]

Donald Trump demands Apple boycott to force it to unlock phone

 

"US presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a boycott of Apple until the tech giant helps unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino killers.

Apple has clashed with the Justice Department (DoJ) over a court order forcing the company to help break the encryption on one of its phones.

On Friday the DoJ called Apple's refusal a "marketing strategy".

Apple said it will not help break into the the phone, citing wider privacy concerns for its users.

The phone belonged to one of the two people who opened fire at an office event in San Bernardino, California, last December, killing 14

Speaking at a campaign rally, Mr Trump said: "Boycott Apple until such time as they give that information."

On Thursday, a court ordered the tech giant to help break the encryption.

The government has called the request narrow and argued it is only focused on this particular iPhone.

The DoJ filed another motion in court on Friday after Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, said Apple would continue to refuse the order.

A California court has set 22 March for the hearing."

Whats your view on this Elerond?

 

I say Apple is being unreasonable and must abide by the governments wishes...its just one phone. Yes if the request is an automatic backdoor for the Federal government  for all Apple devices I would also consider this reasonable but this just takes more time

 

I get a little annoyed when people debate something like " its a privacy issue " when in fact its more important like state security 

[Hurlshort]

So clearly Trump will be choosing Bruce as his running mate.

[BruceVC]

So clearly Trump will be choosing Bruce as his running mate.

No

 

Trump is just attacking Apple because he wants to maintain his tough, implacable, populist " I'll be tough on Muslim Extremist attacks" stance for the presidential debates  

 

I have very little in common with Trump as you know. No my criticism of Apple in this matter is I really think you guys are very concerned with " privacy issues "  but you ignore the reality of the world now where to say " I reject any changes that infringe in my privacy " just seem to me to be idealistic and misplaced due to the real threats of the likes of homegrown terrorism or other internal attacks

 

So you Americans basically have to chose..do you want to live in a society where you take the risk of a terrorist attack occurring or succeeding more likely because the Federal government is unable to access certain information or do you trust your government that it actually will use this new access to Apple devices in a way that is used to ensure state security

 

For me its  a no-brainer...but I admit I don't understand the concern around " privacy "...I have no issue with the government being able to scan all my communications, for me I have nothing to hide but the world and the threat to the West has changed...sadly due to the nature of terrorist attacks all Western governments have to now implement more data surveillance for there citizens. Its done to protect the country 

Edited February 20, 2016 by BruceVC

[Leferd]

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

-Benjamin Franklin

[Gromnir]

we do not personal identify either republican or democrat.  am more libertarian than anything.  that being said, in terms o' economic policy, we more frequent identify with republicans, though am actual pretty even split between republican and democrat when it comes to our personal voting history for all offices.  the democrat and republican parties is frequent described as a liberal v. conservative choice.  is a mistake.  both major US parties is flavors of moderate.  there is notable exceptions to that generalization, but for many decades the parties has offered little to distinguish one from the other in any meaningful way. example: during the 80s there were few American politicians more conservative than a typical southern democrat. as such, Gromnir votes for candidates rather than parties.

 

as for this Presidential race...

 

well, first o' all, keep in mind that Gromnir recognizes just how little actual power a President gots when it comes to domestic affairs.  if you want meaningful domestic change to be initiated by a President, it is likely gonna occur early in his Presidency and only if he/she is of the same party as is controlling Congress.  shouldn't be a surprise as is Congress that actual writes and creates all the laws, and the primary job o' any Congressman is to get reelected. a President who is elected with a mandate from the people, and who gots a sympathetic Congress, can initiate domestic change.  the most important power o' a President is found nowhere in the Constitution. the President is the single most visible politician in the United States, and as such, he/she has functional power to shape the national political agenda.  nevertheless, a typical President is more significant in the international sphere than domestic.

 

warning:  the following will be VERY generalized.  am gonna avoid analysis o' specific plans or programs not 'cause such stuff is unimportant, but because we would be here all day explaining our self.

 

of the remaining Presidential candidates with any likelihood o' victory, bernie sanders is the one we find most interesting.  is not a particular meaningful candidate as we do not see him winning by enough o' a margin to establish the kinda mandate Congress would respond to... and if republicans hold onto Congress, most all o' bernie sanders' plans will die stillborn.  free higher education and meaningful change to income inequality is unlikely to make it through Congress. is extreme tough to predict his impact on the international sphere. even so, we like the idea o' a guy from brooklyn becoming President.

 

clinton... *sigh* am thinking that of the remaining candidates, she would be most effective at brokering international consensus.  clinton is the one most likely to be able to work with european allies.  her husband also has cache in the international arena.  even so, we don't personal like her anymore than we liked her hubby.  from a domestic policy pov, clinton is as boring a moderate democrat as is possible to imagine. ultimate condemnation: she is a politician. Americans don't trust politicians, and clinton represents more o' what we personal dislike 'bout politicians than any candidate.  disingenuous and boring.

 

trump is a cartoon character whose popularity is based on the fact that he is easily the most recognizable republican candidate, and 'cause so many Americans is sick and tired of endemic and stifling political correctness. for those folks who has lost faith in politicians such as clinton and cruz, trump is an alternative.  even so, we almost universal disagree with everything trump utters and we would hate to have him being the guy trying to broker peace in the middle east or negotiating with china. 

 

cruz is a politician like clinton, but more o' a bully. we don't see him as having any genuine plans for dealing with the debt crisis or income inequality-- our two greatest domestic concerns.  guy talks 'bout carpet bombing isis?  if indiscriminate carpet bombing is the plan, then we might as well let putin and the russians handle the fight 'gainst isis. would save a lot o' money and all the civilian corpses could be stacked in front o' putin's door-- he don't seem to mind.

 

bernie sanders is our first choice o' the remaining candidates who seem to have a legit chance. is hardly a ringing endorsement.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

-Benjamin Franklin

But guys lets look at this objectively as its not really relevant to consider the words of the sagacious Benjamin Franklin in this case 

 

The USA is the biggest target for Islamic extremist attacks in the world.The reality is many attacks have been prevented since 9/11 because of the diligence, hard work and resources of groups like the NSA, CIA and Homeland Security...but these groups are required to use what many of you guys consider are unorthodox or even unconstitutional methods like Prism. 

 

So once again I support the intention of Prism, I also don't  understand the whole  " Prism is a possible invasion of the American privacy "....has anyone ever been arrested  unfairly due to abuse of Prism? I get the whole irritating and traitorous comments of Snowden where he " felt the whole world had to know now that the NSA has a means to monitor and track the communications of certain people once they were brought to the attention of the authorities"

 

Now I work in eDiscovery in the financial sector  and the concept of Prism makes sense ...but why would you guys have  an issue with the state department being able to track the communication of real threats to the USA by people who possibly belong to a extremist cell and who use social media to update and there discuss there motives....yes guys social media is used by extremist groups? Would you prefer the government had no way of at least intercepting and understanding this information?

 

And I see this Apple issue as the same type of thing, what difference does it make to you if the federal government has a backdoor to your devices? They would not  access your personal data unless you are really implicated in terrorism...unless people feel they just cannot trust the Federal government which is a bit of a difficult debate to have with someone. I would have to read real examples of how Obama has used Prism to abuse his power to even consider this

 

The reality of the world is simple now, we have to accept that certain ideas of liberty and privacy that we use to consider as sacrosanct are changing due to the threats the West faces...so please dont see this an attack on your way of life...its about your various elected governments trying to make the citizens of there countries safer 

[HoonDing]

"The reality of the world is simple now, we have to accept that certain ideas of liberty and privacy that we use to consider as sacrosanct are changing due to the threats the West faces..."

 

[Leferd]

The reality of the world is simple now, we have to accept that certain ideas of liberty and privacy that we use to consider as sacrosanct are changing due to the threats the West faces...so please dont see this an attack on your way of life...its about your various elected governments trying to make the citizens of there countries safer 

 

I can't disagree with you more. 

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies obtaining a search warrant with a federal judge based on a specifically outlined probably cause; but the idea of mass surveillance of the general citizenry or introducing a backdoor to break encryption with the understanding that it'll only be used this one time and that no one else will ever have access, or can steal, or hack into the software, pretty please you can trust us; is a bit naive.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Leferd

[BruceVC]

we do not personal identify either republican or democrat.  am more libertarian than anything.  that being said, in terms o' economic policy, we more frequent identify with republicans, though am actual pretty even split between republican and democrat when it comes to our personal voting history for all offices.  the democrat and republican parties is frequent described as a liberal v. conservative choice.  is a mistake.  both major US parties is flavors of moderate.  there is notable exceptions to that generalization, but for many decades the parties has offered little to distinguish one from the other in any meaningful way. example: during the 80s there were few American politicians more conservative than a typical southern democrat. as such, Gromnir votes for candidates rather than parties.

 

as for this Presidential race...

 

well, first o' all, keep in mind that Gromnir recognizes just how little actual power a President gots when it comes to domestic affairs.  if you want meaningful domestic change to be initiated by a President, it is likely gonna occur early in his Presidency and only if he/she is of the same party as is controlling Congress.  shouldn't be a surprise as is Congress that actual writes and creates all the laws, and the primary job o' any Congressman is to get reelected. a President who is elected with a mandate from the people, and who gots a sympathetic Congress, can initiate domestic change.  the most important power o' a President is found nowhere in the Constitution. the President is the single most visible politician in the United States, and as such, he/she has functional power to shape the national political agenda.  nevertheless, a typical President is more significant in the international sphere than domestic.

 

warning:  the following will be VERY generalized.  am gonna avoid analysis o' specific plans or programs not 'cause such stuff is unimportant, but because we would be here all day explaining our self.

 

of the remaining Presidential candidates with any likelihood o' victory, bernie sanders is the one we find most interesting.  is not a particular meaningful candidate as we do not see him winning by enough o' a margin to establish the kinda mandate Congress would respond to... and if republicans hold onto Congress, most all o' bernie sanders' plans will die stillborn.  free higher education and meaningful change to income inequality is unlikely to make it through Congress. is extreme tough to predict his impact on the international sphere. even so, we like the idea o' a guy from brooklyn becoming President.

 

clinton... *sigh* am thinking that of the remaining candidates, she would be most effective at brokering international consensus.  clinton is the one most likely to be able to work with european allies.  her husband also has cache in the international arena.  even so, we don't personal like her anymore than we liked her hubby.  from a domestic policy pov, clinton is as boring a moderate democrat as is possible to imagine. ultimate condemnation: she is a politician. Americans don't trust politicians, and clinton represents more o' what we personal dislike 'bout politicians than any candidate.  disingenuous and boring.

 

trump is a cartoon character whose popularity is based on the fact that he is easily the most recognizable republican candidate, and 'cause so many Americans is sick and tired of endemic and stifling political correctness. for those folks who has lost faith in politicians such as clinton and cruz, trump is an alternative.  even so, we almost universal disagree with everything trump utters and we would hate to have him being the guy trying to broker peace in the middle east or negotiating with china. 

 

cruz is a politician like clinton, but more o' a bully. we don't see him as having any genuine plans for dealing with the debt crisis or income inequality-- our two greatest domestic concerns.  guy talks 'bout carpet bombing isis?  if indiscriminate carpet bombing is the plan, then we might as well let putin and the russians handle the fight 'gainst isis. would save a lot o' money and all the civilian corpses could be stacked in front o' putin's door-- he don't seem to mind.

 

bernie sanders is our first choice o' the remaining candidates who seem to have a legit chance. is hardly a ringing endorsement.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Very interesting opinion as I was expecting, I like to hear what all you American guys say about issues like politics. I don't necessarily agree with anyone but this forum has actually helped  me understand a lot more about what motivates the average American citizen. I reference excellent opinions like the Economist and CNN but this forum has helped me really understand what the different people in the various states think...and your opinions are often very different which is understandable considering how different the various states are. I  use some of the views I read on these forums to sometimes make points on the several Radio Talk shows I  Iisten to in SA when I feel the need to explain what motivates the USA...and boy there is loads of misinformation towards the USA from some sectors which I feel I have to dispute

 

Just a quick comment or question on what you said about some of candidates 

 

Trump: I have always maintained that he poses immense negative changes to the American image and perception that the world has of the USA if he comes to power. But let me not be dramatic, if he becomes president and based on your view that the president has limited domestic power could Trump actually do the following

• Reverse Obamacare
• Build the wall
• Deport the 11 million so called illegal immigrants?

Sanders:  I like the guy and I wish I could support him but he makes far too many populist ideas that I know resonate with people who really mean well but its not practical to implement. The biggest concern I have with him is this almost constant attack on big business and Wall Street. I get this negative view people may have of large corporations but what exactly is the issue here? Do people not like the fact that Walmart or Bank of America is so large...I get the 2008 concerns but don't large corporations in the USA actually do more good than bad, for example they

 

• Employ thousands of people
• Pay taxes and contribute towards the general improvement of any state they in
• Due to there size they often have R&D departments that do create innovative products
• They do work in most cases. I refer to the fact that the success criteria is measured in profitability..which is a good way to ensure good governance and less corruption, in South Africa one of the biggest causes of corruption in the Public Sector is due to the fact the targets are not set in the state organ being profitable. So this leads to much more failed government initiatives...trust me profitability is easier to follow if its done in a reasonable way 

I have only ever basically  worked for large corporations in the private sector and they have always been good to me..so I dont understand what Sanders wants to change?

 

Clinton: Yes I agree with your general criticism of her...she is unassuming but I still think she is the best candidate and I hope she becomes the next president. She doens't support anything radical and she is a disciple of Obama and his domestic policies  who I have always supported...despite some of the valid criticisms from some of our members the USA is in a much better place from a foreign policy perspective. Nowadays the USA is about consensus around the UNSC and it doesnt feel the need to respond to attacks on its pride from people ...for example  " Russia has outmaneuvered the USA in Syria " ..who cares about  what Russia does in Syria ?

[Gromnir]

 

The reality of the world is simple now, we have to accept that certain ideas of liberty and privacy that we use to consider as sacrosanct are changing due to the threats the West faces...so please dont see this an attack on your way of life...its about your various elected governments trying to make the citizens of there countries safer 

 

I can't disagree with you more. 

 

fear has always been the greatest motivating factor in history.  the terrible things we do to each other in the name o' fear is legion.

 

am gonna avoid the obvious and overused european examples, but the US internment o' the Japanese in ww2 is a prime example o' the danger ' sacrificing liberties in the name o' safety and security.  

 

http://www.historynet.com/the-niihau-incident.htm

 

Japanese internment were not unpopular, and many liberal-minded newspapers such as the LA Times actual wrote editorials in support o' internment before and after it occurred. peoples were afraid and they thought their fears were justified. the US government had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes which included Japanese ambassadors speculating that in the event hawaii were occupied by the Japanese, the bulk o' the hawaiian-japanese population would support the occupation. the fears were real.  heck, perhaps the fears were more justified than is typical taught in US schools.  even so, Japanese Internment is almost universal recognized as one o' the low points in US history... with the exception o' trump who sees Japanese internment as legitimizing some o' his more extreme immigration plans.

 

the more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms. 

 

gotta learn from history.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

The reality of the world is simple now, we have to accept that certain ideas of liberty and privacy that we use to consider as sacrosanct are changing due to the threats the West faces...so please dont see this an attack on your way of life...its about your various elected governments trying to make the citizens of there countries safer 

 

I can't disagree with you more. 

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies obtaining a search warrant with a federal judge based on a specifically outlined probably cause; but the idea of mass surveillance of the general citizenry or introducing a backdoor to break encryption with the understanding that it'll only be used this one time and that no one else will ever have access, or can steal, or hack into the software, pretty please you can trust us; is a bit naive.

 

I'll be honest this is exactly the response I thought you were going to post, its very reasonable and its similar to the concerns I have seen posted by other people who like us I would consider are liberals and support the whole Obama legacy..so this is one example where we disagree on this type of government initiative. And I think its because of where we live

 

So it seems your objection to the likes of Prism is not based on real examples of abuse of the system but rather on the concept of the potential of abuse? In other words can you give me some examples of how people have been illegally detained due to Prism?

 

And I'm not trying to catch you out but this does seem to be the general criticism of Federal ideas like this whole Apple request..." no we are not going to help the Federal government out by providing a backdoor because of the possible problems we may face in the future" ...you see its just a general fear mongering tactic that immediately galvanizes support from many Americans who don't like the idea that the government can now read your emails ...if you are connected to terrorism'. So of course there may be some instances of perhaps misconduct but I don't think its naive at all to suggest that the likes of the NSA  can manage a system like Prism without us assuming there will be egregious abuses, you need to have more faith in the abilities and integrity of people who work there 

 

In the rest of the world governments make changes to laws like the Apple event because of real terrorist attacks...so you guys in the USA have the luxury to object to certain laws based on a possible outcome 

[Malcador]

Something unsettles me looking at Cruz.

[BruceVC]

 

 

The reality of the world is simple now, we have to accept that certain ideas of liberty and privacy that we use to consider as sacrosanct are changing due to the threats the West faces...so please dont see this an attack on your way of life...its about your various elected governments trying to make the citizens of there countries safer 

 

I can't disagree with you more. 

 

fear has always been the greatest motivating factor in history.  the terrible things we do to each other in the name o' fear is legion.

 

am gonna avoid the obvious and overused european examples, but the US internment o' the Japanese in ww2 is a prime example o' the danger ' sacrificing liberties in the name o' safety and security.  

 

http://www.historynet.com/the-niihau-incident.htm

 

Japanese internment were not unpopular, and many liberal-minded newspapers such as the LA Times actual wrote editorials in support o' internment before and after it occurred. peoples were afraid and they thought their fears were justified. the US government had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes which included Japanese ambassadors speculating that in the event hawaii were occupied by the Japanese, the bulk o' the hawaiian-japanese population would support the occupation. the fears were real.  heck, perhaps the fears were more justified than is typical taught in US schools.  even so, Japanese Internment is almost universal recognized as one o' the low points in US history... with the exception o' trump who sees Japanese internment as legitimizing some o' his more extreme immigration plans.

he more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms. 

 

gotta learn from history.  

 

t

HA! Good Fun!

 

But Gromnir I can respect that analogy  " the more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms " and course it is applicable. 

 

But is that Japanese example relevant? We were talking about  WW2 and the fact that  Japan was at war with the USA....but I am referring to a reality where the state security institutions are looking at ways to address the fact that technology is being used by Terrorist groups, so is it an invasion of liberties for the NSA to look at addressing this? 

[BruceVC]

Something unsettles me looking at Cruz.

Yeah, I also don't like his general mannerisms....its something I can't quite put my finger on ?

Edited February 20, 2016 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

 

Something unsettles me looking at Cruz.

Yeah, I also don't like his general mannerisms....its something I can't quite put my finger on ?

 

 

While Rubio is a poor excuse of MKULTRA programming, Cruz is just a good old psycho trying to mimic normal human mannerisms and emotions. It's just your subconsciousness giving you a warning that his body language doesn't match the words that he is saying.

 

Btw, things are going as expected in Pahrump, Nevada; The proud county of several brothels: 

 

https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/701154437201440768/photo/1

Edited February 20, 2016 by Meshugger

[HoonDing]

"Pahrump"

 

whats in a name indeed

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

The reality of the world is simple now, we have to accept that certain ideas of liberty and privacy that we use to consider as sacrosanct are changing due to the threats the West faces...so please dont see this an attack on your way of life...its about your various elected governments trying to make the citizens of there countries safer 

 

I can't disagree with you more. 

 

fear has always been the greatest motivating factor in history.  the terrible things we do to each other in the name o' fear is legion.

 

am gonna avoid the obvious and overused european examples, but the US internment o' the Japanese in ww2 is a prime example o' the danger ' sacrificing liberties in the name o' safety and security.  

 

http://www.historynet.com/the-niihau-incident.htm

 

Japanese internment were not unpopular, and many liberal-minded newspapers such as the LA Times actual wrote editorials in support o' internment before and after it occurred. peoples were afraid and they thought their fears were justified. the US government had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes which included Japanese ambassadors speculating that in the event hawaii were occupied by the Japanese, the bulk o' the hawaiian-japanese population would support the occupation. the fears were real.  heck, perhaps the fears were more justified than is typical taught in US schools.  even so, Japanese Internment is almost universal recognized as one o' the low points in US history... with the exception o' trump who sees Japanese internment as legitimizing some o' his more extreme immigration plans.

he more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms. 

 

gotta learn from history.  

 

t

HA! Good Fun!

 

But Gromnir I can respect that analogy  " the more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms " and course it is applicable. 

 

But is that Japanese example relevant? We were talking about  WW2 and the fact that  Japan was at war with the USA....but I am referring to a reality where the state security institutions are looking at ways to address the fact that technology is being used by Terrorist groups, so is it an invasion of liberties for the NSA to look at addressing this? 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/08/justice-scalia-on-kelo-and-korematsu/

 

why ignore ww2?  Patriot Act and the expansion of NSA role in spying on Americans were brought about 'cause o' fears resulting from 9/11.  thankfully, the Court were willing to step up and squash a few excesses approved of by the President and Congress... folks like to ignore how complicit were Congress.  we ain't talking 'bout a one-time event.  any time we got a war or a terrorist attack, or fear of a possible terrorist attack, Gromnir weeps.  the world has been relative safe in our lifetime, but there is always war and terrorist attacks and fear o' terrorist attacks.  so we dilute freedoms now, when we are relative safe and what do you s'pose happens after the next 9/11 or war?

 

add some fun

 

 

the reason why james earl jones is being successful bullied in the scene from the 1992 movie sneakers is 'cause he represents the NSA, and the device (box) being referenced in the scene is a tool that would be evidence o' the NSA attempts to spy on Americans... which would be illegal and almost unthinkable in 1992.  am old enough that 1992 doesn't seem that long ago.

 

regardless, domestic terrorists is indeed a legitimate concern. next time a building or bridge gets blown up, how much more freedom does we give up, particular if laws is already in place that facilitate a diminution o' freedoms? and what is a domestic terrorist anyways?  were the black panthers domestic terrorists?  some computer program catches us using specific phrases too often in email or phone conversations and we get added to a list somewhere that results in a diminished standard of scrutiny when reviewing reasonable suspicion or probable cause? 

 

if the local cops, fbi, nsa or anybody else wanna read our mail or listen to our phone conversations, they should get a freaking warrant. we got a 4th Amendment that protects us from such nonsense. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Leferd]

 

 

The reality of the world is simple now, we have to accept that certain ideas of liberty and privacy that we use to consider as sacrosanct are changing due to the threats the West faces...so please dont see this an attack on your way of life...its about your various elected governments trying to make the citizens of there countries safer 

 

I can't disagree with you more. 

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies obtaining a search warrant with a federal judge based on a specifically outlined probably cause; but the idea of mass surveillance of the general citizenry or introducing a backdoor to break encryption with the understanding that it'll only be used this one time and that no one else will ever have access, or can steal, or hack into the software, pretty please you can trust us; is a bit naive.

 

I'll be honest this is exactly the response I thought you were going to post, its very reasonable and its similar to the concerns I have seen posted by other people who like us I would consider are liberals and support the whole Obama legacy..so this is one example where we disagree on this type of government initiative. And I think its because of where we live

 

So it seems your objection to the likes of Prism is not based on real examples of abuse of the system but rather on the concept of the potential of abuse? In other words can you give me some examples of how people have been illegally detained due to Prism?

 

And I'm not trying to catch you out but this does seem to be the general criticism of Federal ideas like this whole Apple request..." no we are not going to help the Federal government out by providing a backdoor because of the possible problems we may face in the future" ...you see its just a general fear mongering tactic that immediately galvanizes support from many Americans who don't like the idea that the government can now read your emails ...if you are connected to terrorism'. So of course there may be some instances of perhaps misconduct but I don't think its naive at all to suggest that the likes of the NSA  can manage a system like Prism without us assuming there will be egregious abuses, you need to have more faith in the abilities and integrity of people who work there 

 

In the rest of the world governments make changes to laws like the Apple event because of real terrorist attacks...so you guys in the USA have the luxury to object to certain laws based on a possible outcome 

 

 

Bruce, I actually don't have a fundamental mistrust of the NSA, CIA, FBI, or any other three letter acronym agency. I like the USA and I like the federal government. But yes, misuse and abuse of law enforcement and intelligence databases is a not so uncommon an occurrence as you assume it is. Sure, most of it is minor and there are very few serious abuses, but they do, and will continue to happen, no matter how innocuous. That's why there are internal Offices of the Inspector General, Internal Affairs, etc., to monitor and investigate abuses. Most of these violations are handled internally and appropriate action is taken against the offending party.

 

Nevertheless, it's precisely because of this potential for more serious abuse, and the likelihood for information and technology to be leaked or hacked that gives pause and worry. 

 

Also, I take the Fourth Amendment very seriously and as such, it is not the role of the government to be Big Brother, because...TERRORISM. This is the rule of law and the belief of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is part of the inexorable spirit of what is an essential American characteristic. I may disagree with some of our more libertarian voices here on many issues concerning the role of Government, the FBI,  the Second Amendment, and the Post Office, but there are also cases where I will disagree with Uncle Sam.

 

 

am gonna avoid the obvious and overused european examples, but the US internment o' the Japanese in ww2 is a prime example o' the danger ' sacrificing liberties in the name o' safety and security.  

 

http://www.historynet.com/the-niihau-incident.htm

 

Japanese internment were not unpopular, and many liberal-minded newspapers such as the LA Times actual wrote editorials in support o' internment before and after it occurred. peoples were afraid and they thought their fears were justified. the US government had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes which included Japanese ambassadors speculating that in the event hawaii were occupied by the Japanese, the bulk o' the hawaiian-japanese population would support the occupation. the fears were real.  heck, perhaps the fears were more justified than is typical taught in US schools.  even so, Japanese Internment is almost universal recognized as one o' the low points in US history... with the exception o' trump who sees Japanese internment as legitimizing some o' his more extreme immigration plans.

 

the more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms. 

 

gotta learn from history.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

What Gromnir wrote is very relevant. Generally speaking they do a great job, and for the most part --don't deserve the blind cynicism and vitriol some of us direct their way. However, the U.S. Government is not infallible. They make mistakes. Repeatedly. Security over liberty is one of them.

 

Fear of terrorism should never give cause to the infringement of our fundamental rights to liberty and privacy. It's un-American.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

So it looks like Hillary won.

[Volourn]

"The USA is the biggest target for Islamic extremist attacks in the world."

 

No, they aren't. Other Muslims are.